Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/13/2007 3:31:45 PM

    As for those who say the world is evolving you are certainly correct on that one. Unfortunately (as evidenced by our dear friend Mr. James pompous ass Light here) it???s evolving into a cesspool of morally bankrupt uneducated losers that can???t spell, speak, or write in their own language and who feel that outing a beloved children???s character (posthumously as a result of pressure from the gay community and after his acceptance by millions who would not have loved him nearly as much had they been made aware that he harbored such a fundamentally altering and perverse character trait) is worthy of praise and applause. For the record Mrs. Rowling (and it is Mrs. since she is married) is a talented author , Dumbledore was and is a great character and role model, and the HP novels are a wonderful work of fantasy fiction. That said myself and many other like minded individuals have lost a certain measure of respect for this woman for yielding to pressure from the gay community and making Dumbledore gay after the novels were written (and I don???t give a damn what the gays and their supporters on this thread say he wasn???t gay from the beginning, there is no evidence in the novels of Dumbledore being gay, no normal person would think he was gay had she not so bluntly stated it, and making him so after the fact was an underhanded attempt to force gay values on her fan base). The fact remains that the gay community so intelligently personified here by Mr. Light feels that they have to shove their homosexuality and their loose morals in the faces of all of us normal individuals. In recent years gays have invaded nearly every aspect of western culture with their ???we???re here, we???re queer, get used to it??? b.s. and when we resist and say things like ???children shouldn???t be exposed to that??? or ???that???s disgusting??? we are labeled gay bashers and homophobes. The gay community gives the impression of accepting promiscuity, hardcore (i.e. steroids) drug use, and public sex acts, values style over substance and character, largely doesn???t believe in God, and takes no responsibility for their rather large part in the spread of the AIDS pandemic. To all the gays: you need to get it through your skulls that we don???t fear you or hate you. We just don???t share your values and no matter what you say, what you do, or what future fictional characters wind up gay we never will.

    • Posted By: awesomeness18 @ 01/15/2008 6:57:32 PM

      You really need to extend your knowledge base if you believe that ONLY homosexuals use drugs, or transmit STD's (including AIDS), or any of the other numerous wrong statements you just said. You should get out and get a life.
      And I am sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, but the way you make fun of people is prejudiced, whether you choose to believe it or not.
      And just as a matter of fact, I will repeat what I have previously said: "If the situation were reversed, and being homosexual was considered 'the norm', or 'normal' could you force yourself to be with someone of the same sex as you?" If you say that you cannot be with a man, because your heart tells you that you are in love with a woman, which is theoretically unacceptable, then you prove the point that you cannot choose who you fall in love with.
      In the future, please refrain from making such derogatory remarks about others.

    • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/17/2007 4:46:28 PM

      Do you have any proof that the gay community pressured JK into making a character gay or was that another attempt at spouting nonsense? There is no evidence to suggest that Dumbledore was straight either. Gay people can have female friends and can chat and such with them. As your obviously keep to point out, there are children that you feel shouldn???t have to know of such things like homosexuality at a young age. Maybe JK thought that the parents of the characters in the book might take the fact that Dumbledore wanted to dance or what not with men instead of women the same as the pathetic idiot who feels compelled to try and proclaim that any lifestyle other than that you lead is wrong and sinful. Does JK actually say ???You have to like gays because I said so!??? no, she doesn???t, so don???t accuse her of forcing people to do so. Also, I think you will find that there isn???t only the gay community that does things such as drugs and public sexy acts. I think that if you care to check that there are more heterosexual drug abusers and public sex addicts out there then there are homosexual ones. I think that you will also find that you are also forcing your opinions onto people as much as gay people are. The fact that I do not believe in god does not mean that others do not, and some that do not may also have different religious backgrounds. As for the AIDS pandemic I will agree with you, but also give back the fact there are other STD???s more commonly distributed by members of the heterosexual community. To anyone other than moron here, I mean you no offence; I am only displaying an equal opinion of information that basically says ???you aren???t much different???. Also I would like to point out that not once has any gay person here said ???Oi, be gay??? as if we are trying to make you all, in any way, shape or form.

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/18/2007 7:41:23 PM

        And what I said is that she is forcing her values on her fans not that she is forcing them to think one way or another on the subject which is impossible for anyone even the talented JKR to do. Simply making Dumbledore gay sends the message that gay people should be accepted as normal members of society. If she had let her fans know before the books were finished that Dumbledore was gay she would have given them a choice to either accept or reject the character of Dumbledore and choose whether or not to allow their children to be exposed to this character. She failed to do so and as such she has forced her values on her fan base. Your inability to grasp this idea and your inability to make a compelling argument free of childish insults (did you really write the words "Mr. Twat Face and them claim to have an IQ of 127) only futher cements your astounding lack of intellect in the minds of those who read this message board whether they tell you so or not. And yes retarded children obviously have families or they wouldn't exist and those family members may read my comment but the fact remains that that particular verbal jab was directed not at them or their unfortunate family member but at you and the astounding stupidity you continue to display.

        • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/20/2007 7:34:13 PM

          Dear Mr. Twat face (yes I am still saying that with my 127 IQ) I do find that you are even more remarkably insufferable. The fact remains that you still find that she is forcing her values onto people. Has JK actually said ???like it or lump it???? No, she hasn???t and if JK were to out Dumbledore as gay in the series, do you not think that by doing so, she would still have been trying to ???force??? her opinions upon people? Yet, the real so claimed potter fanatics, would have read the story regardless as it would not alter the facts and such about what Dumbledore has done, is doing and will do in the books, and the fact that the story is about Harry, not Dumbledore, so people would read the stories for that reason. She has obviously not forced it upon us well enough if we still have idiots like you arguing about the case at hand. The only people arguing against it now are pig ignorant imbecilic, narrow minded idiots such as yourself, who believe themselves to be of a higher class just because they???re deemed ???normal???. Have you forgotten that statistically speaking the ratio of homos Vs Hetero???s who have AID???s is not in our favour, but in yours? There are more heterosexual people than homosexual people that have the AID???s infection, due to their promiscuous behaviour. You failed to mention that in any of your statements posted thus far. The fact that you fail to research your arguments prior to posting them leads me to believe that I am wasting my time arguing with you as you are going to continue to post this unsavoury utter rubbish until the glorious day you die. But fear not, this doesn???t mean that I will cease to reply to your posts and give you the satisfaction of feeling victorious in an argument where you fail to realise that you have no right to dictate how other people live their lives.

          • Posted By: Norrin @ 12/24/2007 8:15:20 PM

            Hey, let's not lower our standards of decency when debating this issue. Let's try to keep it civil. No need to compare countries in terms of teaching standards or anything that implies accomplishment or progression. It's not relevant to this debate.

            James, in reading my earlier posts I noticed that you thought I was attacking you regarding your writing style and not on the merits of your argument. The reason I commented on your writing style was that I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. It made no sense to me. However, I do understand the posts you recently submitted, and I'm not sure you've grasped my point of view. So what is my point of view?

            Many of the characters in the series are noble, courageous, brilliant, good, and fun. Dumbledore ranks as one of the more loveable characters. No one worth his/her salt can contradict this with any seriousness. However, in reading the series, many of these characters came across as asexual. By this, I mean the characters were masterfully woven into the storyline and their development over the series was done in a fashion that made the reader almost believe that they were real. This is a testament to Rowling's skill as an adept author. But nowhere in the series was sexuality added as an element to their development. More specifically, the characters I am referring to are McGonagall, Voldemort, Sirius Black, some of the teachers at Hogwarts and, of course, Dumbledore. I believe the reason for this omission is that it really didn't matter, did it? These characters were pretty much asexual throughout the series. So when you have Rowling stating that Dumbledore is gay well after the series is over, the effect is not surprising. You have some that are confused, some that are happy, and others that are down-right angry. The admission comes from left-field. There's no root for that statement to hold any weight. Her admission simply politicized the popular series, and that is why you are seeing so many people not buying into Rowling's statement.

            • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/25/2007 4:45:04 PM

              I wasn't having a dig at you Norrin, and I appologise if you think that i was. I just find that arguing about peoples grammar here is just finding ways to try to pick on those that are supporting this issue. Can we not ignore the fact that some people have bad spelling or grammar and stick to the point. Again Norrin, I appologise to you for sounding as if I was trying to insult you, which upon re-reading my post to you, I agree that it was an easy mistake to make.

    • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/17/2007 4:45:58 PM

      Ouch, that was really clever of you to throw statistics at me Mr. Twat Face without gaining the facts. First of all, I think that if you checked, I am probably more educated than yourself, and at a higher level than an English college education, most probably unlike yourself. I, if you wish to know, am a level 4, adults ICT teacher which is probably way too advanced for your self important, narrow minded self to appreciate. I have an IQ of 127, 47 above your guess and 27 above a national standard. I also have several level 3 qualifications in ICT or I wouldn???t be able to have such a career now would I? So before you criticize somebody???s knowledge, feel free to check the statistics in future.
      Next up, I seriously doubt that you would last 5 seconds against me without the help of your German Shepherd. It sounds to me like you wouldn???t bother attempting unless you had your dog present. It comes to something when you cannot indulge in a 1 on 1 beating without the support of anybody to have your back.
      Exactly where do you see these public acts of sex, because I???m very certain that I have not seen any such acts performed in my area? Obviously again your just spouting nonsense without actually getting some form of proof.
      Comparing me to a ???retarded??? 8 year old is still morally wrong, regardless of the fact that they may never read these comments or not. I???m sure that there are parents, relatives or friends of the ???retarded??? children, or do you also not think that they are capable of having them?

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/18/2007 7:21:13 PM

        As to the homosexual public sex acts I mentioned you must have missed the story about said despicable display broadcast on Hannity and Colmes 2 weeks ago. As for my German Shepherd: she'll be happily waiting on the side lines with my brother to rip you a new one when I'm done kicking the living *** out of you. The actual fight will be one on one or man to pervert however you want to put it.

        • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/20/2007 8:19:39 PM

          What the *** is Hannity and Colmes? the local weekly colouring book you have in your area? As I do not live in the US, I would find it very difficult indeed to obtain a copy of that, would I not. Just because the morons in your region find it amusing to endulge in such activities, I think you would find that any person from the area of South Yorkshire, England of which I reside find comfort in doing such acts in the privacy of their own homes.

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/18/2007 7:13:34 PM

        What I am about to say to you Mr. Light is decidely un-Christian of me but since you yourself have turned your back on God it matters little at this point since wrath against evil is actually considered a virtue by many Christians. Mr. Light I am done listening to your moronic homosexual idealogy and your attempts to intimidate me through threat of violence. I don't need anybody's help to kick the living *** out of sorry Godless pervert like yourself. If you would really like to give it your best shot then come to the corner of Finley Dr. and Leo in Shreveport, LA. You just let me know when and I'll give you the one on one ass kicking you so desparately desire. You can even bring your *** buddies to watch but be warned that they will not survive any attempts to intervene on your behalf and jump me. You and yours won't see my friends coming should they choose to do so. And should your friends actually attempt to help you I'll be inclined to curb stomp your head in when I'm done pummeling your brains out of your ears. As I said you just let me know when and I'll be waiting.

        As to the fact that you are a teacher that only goes to show that there is a shortage of competent teachers in this country and the standards for hiring teachers have fallen drastically. Clearly anyone who spells possibility as "poassility" and confuses "content" with "contempt" has no business teaching anyone anything. I truly feel sorry for anyone that calls you their teacher or whom you call your student. As to your IQ I'll say this : There is no way in hell you have an IQ of 127. You're simply to stupid to score that high on any credible IQ test. I suspect you put your stock in one of those idiotic internet IQ tests. And unfortunately for you Mr. Light my educational background easily trumps yours as I actually hold a masters degree in human physiology and have been responsible for the teaching of cardiovascular physiology to numerous nursing students. The ~80-85 IQ points you actually possess pale in comparison to the 138 which I possess that much is clear.

        • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/18/2007 8:21:59 PM

          that should have been "a sorry Godless pervert".

          • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/20/2007 8:13:12 PM

            Well as you live in the U.S. I would consider your pathetic life saved as I reside in the UK, where I think you shall find that the tolerance of GLBT is higher than yours. Obviously it is time that the US showed a more humane way to prove that it really does pride itself on its acceptance of any background other than just saying so. The fact that you feel the need to assume that I would for a start do something so cowardly as to get others involved in an argument of mine shows that you are obviously not capable of understanding what a fair fight really is without needing the assistance of a pet or sibling.
            As for the teacher shortage, that???s your country pal. Just because it???s in dire need of people adequate at teaching any skill better than what it can currently distribute, doesn???t go to say that everywhere is the same. How about you try to find a teaching post in the UK? I think you will find it very difficult as there is a great percentage of the country with ambitions to get involved in a teaching role. By standards I am a great teacher considering the fact that I was able to obtain my full teaching degree by the age of 18 and to settle into a full teaching position by the age of 19, when the national standard of finally qualifying as a teacher is 24 years of age, which gives me a 5 - 6 year lead on any other person of my age who wishes to become a teacher. Obviously we should start to ship some of our qualified teachers over there to give you a hand as you obviously require it. As for your claimed profession in teaching cardiovascular physiology to nursing students, I seriously doubt that anyone would consider such a narrow minded individual like yourself capable of giving any form of education other than a seminar in ???how to get your dog to roll over and rip people one??? and so doubt that you are being entirely honest about your IQ as of such. My IQ score of 127 was obtained through the trials of attaining my teacher???s degree thus not being from the internet which I assume is where you actually got your score. Either that or you just counted the number of times your dog rolled over in a single day.

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/18/2007 7:56:48 PM

        And Mr. Light as I told you before I have a wonderful life it's just thankfully nowhere near the perverse cesspool that dominates your own life nor do my values fall anywhere near the despicable garbage you call your own system of values. And your claims of me including statistics are simply false. Nowhere in that comment is their a single number or % value which could be construed as a statistic. Again you prove your lack of intelligence. Please keep doing so as it only further proves my point. As to the comment about STD's I think you'll find that given the relatively small percentage of Americans in the LGBT community there are more heterosexuals with STD's but if you look at it in terms of percentages I'd be willing to bet on finding a much higher percentage of gay and bi-sexual males with STD's than the percentage of heterosexual males with STD's.

  • Posted By: yaoilover @ 11/19/2007 12:28:53 AM

    What is your problem Goblewoble? So what if Dumbledore is gay? It's people like that disgust me. You shouldn't judge people for the sexuatlity. You had respect for Dumbledore BEFORE you found out he was gay, but now all the sudden you lost respect for him because he's gay. OMG, someone shoudl wack you over your head. Personaly, I love the fact JK made one of her characters gay, it just proves that would is not so judgmental has you. Go JK.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/13/2007 7:25:05 PM

      If you are a yaoi fan you're even more disgusting than gays. You're a woman rooting for two men to have sex and getting off on it. Just stick to your stupid pervy Japanese cartoons and video games and keep your comments to yourself. You're obviously retarded (just like my dear friend James Light) if you think sentences like "it just proves that would is not so judgmental has you" actually make any sense at all. It's unfortunate that so many people are this stupid. The human race really is doomed.

      • Posted By: awesomeness18 @ 01/15/2008 6:34:34 PM

        I was just wondering why you constantly feel the need to degrade others. My guess is that you were not loved enough as a child, but we won't get into that. You really should learn to be more accepting and understanding of people and stop being so disgraceful and belittling towards others. (And just an FYI, yes I am educated, and I still don't appreciate the way you make fun of others for their abilites.)

  • Posted By: Theweb @ 12/28/2007 7:52:51 PM

    When reading the Harry Potter series, no where did the idea that Dumbledore was gay enter my mind. And that is because its not true. As Norrin said, "There's no root for that statement to hold any weight." It is just publicity.

  • Posted By: dsmith3559 @ 12/19/2007 2:32:48 PM

    I wonder how many parents would have let their children read the series had they known it would become an advocacy for gay rights. I think it was morally irresponsible to make Dumbledore gay, and showed a lack of regard for parents and their children. I also think it was only done to satisfy Hollywood degenerates who wish to promote a gay lifestyle. Shame on you, JK, for turning your back on your fans for more money.

  • Posted By: dsmith3559 @ 12/19/2007 2:26:52 PM

    I wonder how many parents would have let their children read the series had they known it would become a promotion of the gay lifestyle. I think making the most respected character gay was morally irresponsible, and done only to satisfy the Hollywood crowd.

  • Posted By: Hypnosis @ 10/24/2007 11:27:07 AM

    Ah, the Bible also says that we should beat our kids, sell our daughters and do all kind of strange things. There's also the fact that not all parts of the Bible is actually IN the book. So, uh, scrap the Bible. Just believe in God, and do what he tells you to do directly through your own heart. God does not live in a crappy old book. The book was written by people without knowledge we have today. And I, personally, think that it???s a sin to think that you've the right to interpret Gods work, to say that what YOU see is what God intended you to see. Also, we should scrap marriage, because, HEY, it???s a sin to promise things you don???t know you can stick to! And you CAN???T promise that you???ll love your spouse for that long time.
    And honestly. If you think a fictional book is a threat against your beliefs, your beliefs have to be REALLY, REALLY weak. I???m saying this as a Christian, and you can tell me that I???ll go to hell if you want to. I don???t believe in hell. Hell requires one more divine power, which would really much speak against God. So there???s no hell.
    As for Rowling ???destroying??? the books: I???m sure she wrote for the same sake as all authors ??? the joy. And the joy was hers, and well, it???s your problem if you think she wrote them to please YOU.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/24/2007 5:45:04 PM

      Exactly what do the first two paragraphs you wrote have to do with the issue of Dumbledore being gay? First off, if you can provide actual verifiable support for the claims you make in that first sentence I'll believe you. Until then I'll go with the belief that your statement is a load of crap. Second your beliefs do not fall in the realm of Christianity but are rather much closer to gnosticism. There is nothing inherently wrong with that it's just doesn't conform to Christianity. Third, considering that you aren't actually a Christian, who are you to tell others what isn't and isn't a sin. Fourthly, assuming that God exists He gave us the free will and the intelligence to interpret His works (which if He exists are all around us) and see them in whatever light we choose. To say that interpreting God's work in ways that conform to your own system of beliefs is a sin is idiotic. Anything that is open to interpretation will be interpreted by people in a way that most conforms to that persons system of beliefs. Fifth, unless you've actually died and spoken to God, who are to state that there is no hell as if it were a fact. Hell does not require a second divine power. It requires an unholy or evil power which pales in comparison to the power of God (otherwise the revolting angels in heaven would have won and God would have been cast into the pit of hell). Sixth, if you wish people to take you seriously you should avoid making moronic statements like "which would really much speak against God" and "you CAN???T ("can't" just like every other contraction in your comment has an apostrophe not 3 question marks in it; it's also lower case just like every other word you've used capslock on in your comment) promise that you'll (corrected) love your spouse for that long time." The words "really" and "much" don't belong in the first sentence and the words at the end of the second one should have been "for that long (of a) time" or "for so long". Seventh, who are you to call marriage a sin. Who are you to tell anyone what they can or can't promise. My father's parents married at the age of 21 and loved each other until their respective dying days. My own mother and father have been married for over 35 years and still love each other very much. Just because your own parents weren't (and now you aren't) capable of making a long term commitment to a loved one doesn't mean we're all incapable of such a thing. With every sentence you write you prove yourself dumber. And while I'm sure Rowling did indeed find enjoyment in writing her books she also wrote them for loads of money and to satisfy the curiosity of her fans who would have been dissappointed had she left them hanging. The fact is that her books did please many people. The unnecessary statement she made outside of the books about Dumbledore's sexual orientation is what has so many fans angry.

      • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/10/2007 8:53:45 PM

        Seriously, how many dictionaries did you receive for Christmas this year?

        • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/18/2007 8:07:20 PM

          Clearly one more than you did since obviously you have never bothered to own or even crack one open once in your life.

      • Posted By: Hypnosis @ 10/25/2007 10:16:31 AM

        Oh, that's one loooong text for me to read. Well, no, it has more to do with people believing in a Bible they haven't read. I've read it. I doubt you have. And I wrote the crap in word, which has interface problems with the internet. Furthermore, I'm not from a country where we speak or write very much English. Try write in my language, and you'll see what I mean. Your proof for what I've said is in the Bible itself, read it. You'll be surprised.

        • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 11/08/2007 3:34:30 PM

          I have no intention of trying to write in your language. Obviously you enjoy spouting crap from your mouth and proclaiming it to be written in the bible. And actually I have read or have had read to me in church nearly all of the bible so I know that the crap your claiming to be in it is false. Clearly whoever translated the bible into English is just as bad at doing so as you are at writing in English.

          • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 11/08/2007 7:09:44 PM

            What I meant to say was whoever translated "your" bible into English is just as bad at doing so as you are at writing in English.

            • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/10/2007 8:56:32 PM

              So what happens if it is in a section that you havent read or had read to you?

        • Posted By: natpraise @ 10/25/2007 10:43:01 PM

          What Bible are you reading? Cause you had some pretty twisted stuff that I've never read in my Bible. (not saying that to be mean-there are some very different translations-some not to be trusted)

          • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/10/2007 8:55:45 PM

            And how do you know that yours is the one to be trusted?

    • Posted By: JesusFreak18 @ 10/29/2007 6:12:28 PM

      If you can show me a reference to each of those "Commandments", I will eat my shoe. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but please...do not misquote scripture. If you honestly think the Bible says those awful things I would be happy to give you Bible references that contest the information that you are giving out. I would enjoy speaking of this subject with you if you wish to.
      God bless,

    • Posted By: natpraise @ 10/25/2007 10:38:26 PM

      Wow-this is what made up theology looks like~SCARY

  • Posted By: LadyMiriel @ 11/05/2007 3:28:56 AM

    Wow. You people really are ridiculous. J.K Rowling was answering questions. She answered things like who Neville wound up with. None of those things are in the books, but she answered questions about them. One of those things was Dumbledore's past. The only relevance it has is to give him some kind of memory of love. Given how he kept saying love was important, I'm rather glad he had at least felt the emotion in his youth.
    She's not doing it to sell more books, you idiots. The series is over. And the Bible-bashers can get stuffed. You're gasping and saying you wish you'd never read the books, because she revealed this. It DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. He's still Dumbledore, and paragraphs having him hitting on others allatime haven't suddently appeared in the books. Get over it. Harry has some pretty intense kisses with Ginny, in the last book. So, those are ok but Dumbledore having a thing for Grindelwald, which does not affect the story, is somehow wrong?

    Her series, so her ideas are what makes it true. Get over yourselves. Your moral values are irrelevant. Try avoiding bigotry in your reception of texts.
    She did not sidestep the issue. It just was not relevant at the time. It would have been gratuitous, like having Harry obsess about Ginny's cup size in detail. She answered a question about how she imagined him. Dumbledore is her intellectual property. She therefore has the right to envision him however she wants. It's like being told where McGonagall grew up; not necessary in the story, but if someone asked, no doubt they'd find that Rowling pictured McGonagall as having grown up in some particular place.

    • Posted By: GwenMalfoy @ 11/06/2007 2:27:29 PM

      Wonderfully worded. Thank you very much for your input- I agree wholeheartedly with you.

      • Posted By: NCJECulver @ 12/17/2007 5:33:50 PM

        In re-reading my previous post, it occurs to me that some may think I am opposed to Dumbledore being homosexual. I am not. My comments are directed at the idea that somehow the author's own ideas represent the "true" Dumbledore, to which the imaginations of her readers must give way. Because there IS no "true" Dumbledore (he is a fictional character, after all :-) ) there can be no definitive Dumbledore. Nor do I support the contention (as proposed by JKR herself) that she "owns" the character, nor the implication that her readers must kowtow to what she imagines Dumbledore to be ("He is what he is", she reportedly said). What she owns (speaking literarily and creative here, not legally) are the words on the pages of her book, nothing more. She certainly does NOT own the Dumbledore of my or any other reader's imagination, nor does her authorial status give her the right or entitlement (let alone the ability) to exercise control over her readers' imaginations. After all, I as a reader can only interact with the words she wrote, not the ones she didn't. To insist that ideas an author DIDN'T express are relevant to the literary experience is to subject all readers to whims and dictates of information to which they have no access (unless the author should choose to divulge it) and which is subject to change (JKR has already publically changed her mind on, e.g., Neville's wife, and Ron's career; so which wife, and which career, is "true"? How many times has she changed her mind on either point and not bothered to tell us?) Is the author's imagination only relevant when she divulges it, or are her undivulged imaginings equally authoritative? What if she had not chosen to tell us Dumbledore was homosexual? Would he still be, regardless? Would that make me wrong to imagine a heterosexual Dumbledore, even though I couldn't possibly have any idea what JKR was thinking?

        By sharing her writing she has invited her readers to have a literary experience. But in so doing, she has relinquished ownership of those characters. To insist on ownership (as she has done) and the right to define or re-define those characters as she sees fit after the fact, is to insist on an absolute control over the literary experience of her readers she cannot possibly have.

      • Posted By: NCJECulver @ 12/17/2007 4:30:30 PM

        "Her series, so her ideas are what makes it true". I'll disagree here. Any reading experience is a complex interaction between the words of an author and the imagination of her readers. The Dumbledore of JKR's creation is no more than words on a page. If Dumbledore (or any character) "lives" in any sense, he "lives" in the imagination of the reader. The Dumbledore that is "real" to me is unique to me. As a Lord of the Rings fan, for example, my Dumbledore bears a passing resemblance to Gandalf. Others who grew up on other wizarding stories would undoubtedly imagine a different Dumbledore. And it is the Dumbledore of MY imagination -- not yours and not JKR's -- that I fell in love with (platonically speaking :-) ). And that Dumbledore is a co-product of words in a book and my imagination. It is an abuse of the author-reader relationship to suggest that an author's ideas must take precedence over her reader's. It is all well and fine if JKR imagines Dumbledore to be homosexual, but, insofar as there is nothing of it in the text, it has no relevance at all to the Dumbledore I came to know and admire over the past seven years. And it certainly doesn't obligate me to abandon MY (rather asexual, actually) Dumbledore for hers.

  • Posted By: sparkles @ 10/23/2007 11:50:08 AM

    dear god, people can some of you not hear yourselves?! You are being really homophobic and could hurt a lot of poeple with your comments. We are all human, why should it matter if we fancy boys or girls?! It's interesting about dumbledore and good, because we need many more gay characters that are high profile. Gandalfs gay too, did you know that? Until people stol this homophobia and accept people for who we are we need things like this to happen, it need to be discussed and limited opinions challenged. One day maybe people will stop being idiots and we can all live together peacefully. I hope so.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/23/2007 4:02:16 PM

      He's right Gandalf was not gay. The actor that played Gandalf in the movies was and is gay. That would be Ian McKellan (aka Magneto). And yes he is a good actor but I still don't approve of his lifestyle which, like many other heterosexuals, I find disgusting. Oh and I'll make you a deal: we'll stop making what you consider to be homophobic damaging comments when you 'sturt lurning hwo two spell'.

      • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:35:32 AM

        Please don't lump heterosexuals together as prejudiced, ok? I don't think most heterosexuals do find the existance of other people disgusting.

        • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 11/08/2007 4:22:39 PM

          Are you stupid? Did you read what I wrote? I said many heterosexuals find their lifestyle (i.e. their actions smar guy) to be disgusting. I didn't say many heterosexuals. It's a persons actions that I define as disgusting not the actual person who may do good things (like Dumbledore) which are to be noted and rewarded and not disgusting and still engage in gay sex which is disgusting. Just because your heterosexual and a proclaimed Christian and you think gay sex is just peachy and fine doesn't mean we all do or should.

          • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/10/2007 9:22:00 PM

            You missed a "t" from smart. Who ever taught you how to spell must be pretty appalled right now as you are so contempt at pointing out every inch of grammar and misspelled words you have found thus far.

            • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/14/2007 2:30:53 PM

              Yes I did miss a t from smart and you totally mispelled the word content (meaning happy with) and instead wrote the word contempt (meaning a feeling of disrespect and disdain for a person, place, or thing; kind of the way I feel about moronic perverts like yourself). I can only assume that was your pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Unfortunately you have done nothing more than to reinforce the notion that you are as dumb as you sound.

              • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/17/2007 5:05:32 PM

                and dont forget that i reinforced the fact that I've obviously wound you up. You seem annoyed.... I like that.....

    • Posted By: rexlibris @ 10/23/2007 2:22:04 PM

      This is not a comment on my feelings on characters being gay, but Gandalf was definitely NOT gay. Tolkien was a staunch conservative Catholic and would never ever make a gay character. And furthermore, Gandalf was a Maia, the equivalent of an angel and so was asexual.

  • Posted By: ayeceaeph @ 11/15/2007 12:54:16 AM

    Get a life "idontsupportjk"...seriously...do you realize the inconsistency of what you just wrote? You said "let use not let her influence us for wrong ideas that 'homosexuality is ok'!". Are you not, however, trying to influence us as well? Does stature and fame lay claim to influence, or does public outcry do just as much damage and/or good? Do not be so quick to throw stones as you yourself are just as guilty.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/13/2007 7:41:44 PM

      Man you are dumb. First of all you can't determine the quality of someone's life from a posted comment although you can certainly get a feel for their intelligence (and quite frankly neither one of you comes across as all that bright; he with his poor grammar skills and you with your gleening of totally irrelevant and incorrect argument from his statement) The man is providing his counter argument to JKR's argument (which you and other comment posters support) that homosexuality is acceptable human behavior that should be forced upon children. Trying to influence others into one's own line of thinking doesn't make a person hypocritical especially when that attempt at influence is in response to an attempt by a famous person to influence others into a point of view to which one is diametricallyn opposed.

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/14/2007 1:12:29 PM

        That should be "a totally irrelevant argument" and diametrically has no "n" on the end of the word. I wouldn't want morons like Mr. Light being further reinforced in their idiotic English language skills.

        • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/17/2007 4:55:02 PM

          I wouldn't like you to think that you have to correct it just because my english literacy skills arent quite as adequate as yours. Id like you to get a life. theres a difference.

  • Posted By: ren11 @ 12/15/2007 12:29:24 AM

    Dumbledore being gay is not really the issue most people have. The real problem is that this revalation does nothing whatsoever to enhance the story, there are no "aha!" moments or anything. Based on the books, you would not have been lead to the assumption that Dumbledore was gay. It is just uneccessary really.

  • Posted By: RemusLupin @ 10/23/2007 2:24:15 AM

    RoonilWazlib! You are SO right! I think she wanted to promote her future projects by puting herself in a position of tolarant and accepting writer. For me Dumbledore will stay straight forever. After the book and the characters were written she can say nothing about them. They has their own life in readers minds and in the books. Saying things like "Dumbledore is a gay" or "Nevill will marry Hannah Abbot" is not up to her now.
    At the moment she finished the books - the characters have their own lives now.
    Though I can say, that the lives of the Hogwarts teacher is pretty strange - no famalies, no children of their own... a bit sorry for them. In my imagenation Dumbledore had a love affair with Proffesor MacGonagall, but for some reason they could not stay together... :)

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:41:01 AM

      "Dumbledore will stay straight forever."
      Funny, she never hinted that he was straight to begin with.

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/14/2007 2:39:58 PM

        Yes of course flirting with MInerva and Madam Pomfrey and dancing with Olympia (and kissing her hand) don't hint at being a heterosexual at all. Did you even read the books? Somehow I doubt it.

  • Posted By: jamez292 @ 10/24/2007 7:05:34 AM

    What the Hell!!! You know, there are some right sad idiots out there that discust me. You people are willing to throw away, burn, whatever your copies of what you once thought were a fantastic series of books, because of one three letter word, GAY! You people are as sad as hell. who on earth do you think you are, trying to push your beliefs from a stupid book that maybe no more than 3 of you have read, onto people that could not, quite honestly care what you think. just because a book says something, it does not mean that it is something that we should all respect. there are millions and millions and millions of people out there, chances are over more than 400X there are people who share your beliefs, who just dont care what your stupid book says or your highness.

    I, James Light, A GAY MAN, wish to tell all you sad, pathetic morons out there who feel you have the right to judge people on their lifes, to go and stick your useless book where your Lords sunny rays don't shine and find yourselves something better to do than critisize what J.K. Rowling has thought about a person that isn't even real. Stupid sad, morons.

    Long live J. K. Rowling's and Harry Potter's world. Long live GAY people, pride, and our cocktails!!!

    James Light.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/24/2007 7:53:07 PM

      Oh my! We're so sorry to "discust" you.
      Who do you think you are. You live a perverse lifestyle that you try and push on others and you call them sad for not buying into it. Nobody wants to burn JKR's books because her post series imagination dictates that Dumbledore is now gay. And you've done a great job pulling numbers out of your own @$$. How do you know who has or hasn't read the bible. You want us to be tolerant and accepting of your lifestyle but you don't extend us the same courtesy. The issue is not respecting a passage written in the bible but respecting the people who hold to that passage or passages. You clearly do not and therefore myself and other like minded individuals do not respect you in kind.

      Exactly what are you trying to say in that last sentence of your first paragraph because it reads as though a retarded 8 year old wrote it. As for the second paragraph I'll say this: You don't sound at all like a self important idiot. Not one bit! (LOL) And your spelling is phenomenal (the words are "lives" and "criticize" you "stupid, (notice the comma here) sad, moron"). If you have any pride left after reading this I suggest you keep your comments under wraps along with cocktails (which probably contain ruffies so you can have your way with unsuspecting men).

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/24/2007 10:43:30 PM

        that should have been "your cocktails" in the last sentence.

        • Posted By: jamez292 @ 10/25/2007 4:23:20 PM

          I will go through my response to your reply in order.

          Yes, you do ???disgust??? me, but I don???t want you or anybody else to apologise so don???t.
          Who do I think I am? I think that I am a human being, just as you are (though I have had doubts after reading your comment, I dot regard being scum as being human) that has the right to a peaceful life without judgement from stupid morons like yourself.
          How would you know what my lifestyle is like? Do you know me? No, I didn???t think so, so how would you know my lifestyle is perverse? And don???t start saying that I am trying to push it onto others when you religious freaks are doing exactly the same damn thing. The reason I am calling people sad is not because they won???t buy into an opinion of mine, it because people are being sad enough to take a comment made by somebody which supports equal rights for all and using I to find a way to discriminate against a community.
          If you think that nobody wants to burn JKR???s books then you obviously just read only my comment and decided not to go read the other comments left didn???t you as there are such mentions of people just nipping out to the local library or bookstore to torch it to cleanse it of ???Satan???s filth??? and a mention of one house hold throwing three copied into the bin over the whole situation.
          Now about me being a magician, if I could pull things out of my ???@$$???, I???m pretty sure that I would choose something better than numbers to pull from there. For a full list of what I already know I can, why don???t you use a search engine to find out? If you???re going to tell me that you know exactly how many people who have posted comments have actually read the Bible, then fine, criticize (look, I???m minding my spelling for you) away at the fact that I gave figures, but until that time, notice how I mentioned ???chance are??? in the same sentence as I gave that estimate.
          What the last sentence of my first paragraph means is that there are people out there who do not care about what the Bible or God say about gay being a sin. Basically if being gay is a sin, you might as well just start discriminating against everything else that can be discriminated against such as skin colour, gender, age, the list is endless.
          While I???m here, I???ll throw this bit in. I thought it was really wonderful of you to comment on how you either, interpret 8 year olds in general, or on just how really sincere of you it was to bring down some random 8 year old child or any person that just happens to be a little slower that what most people regard as ???normal???. To be honest, I???m glad there are people who aren???t what you interpret as ???normal??? because if there were, they might all be just like you.

          • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 11/08/2007 7:22:09 PM

            I have no intentions of ever apologizing to a perverted individual like yourself. You need not worry about that. As far as shaming you goes, it was clear the moment you started expounding the virtues of gay sex and proclaiming all Christians to be "stupid, sad, morons" that you've got that one covered all by yourself you pompous ass. My goal however was not to shame you but to prove to others on this board your lack of intelligence and inability to give a concise well written opinion without resulting to childish name calling. Your response has proven my point beautifully. Thank you. I'm so glad I could "succeed" in showing others just how stupid and pompous you really are.

            • Posted By: jamez292 @ 11/21/2007 10:21:22 PM

              And may I ask exactly how you know that I am a perverted individual eh? R u watchin us at all times because the way I see it is you???re the once perverting yourself by indulging in watching us, Idiot! u succeeded in *** all other than showing how impeccably ignorant you are. wasnt the aim of a Christians lifestyle to "Love thy neighbour" yet so far, your discriminating against something thats natural, you insult defenceless 8 year old children who for no fault of their own wasnt born as what you class as "normal". Whats next? You victimise race?
              *** sake, if being normal means having to be just like u im so glad that im as far away from it as I can possibly get. To be quite honest if I could see you face to face now, I think id have to try hard not to try and knock some sense into you.
              Next off, I think you will find that I am the one who started with the childish name calling. It was people like you who are too blind to look beyond anything other than each others arses that started the impetuous arguments over a gay person. So dont say that im the ones starting it. Its like the kettle calling the pot.
              As for you ???succeeding??? in showing people how stupid and pompous I am, I dont see any1 else replying agreeing with you to this point, and the ones that will do so after this post will only be backing up the fact that u all piss in the same bucket and didn???t agree with you before hand until I just gave them a reason to do so.

              • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/14/2007 2:18:11 PM

                I am so glad you admit to being a stupid pompous moron. It's really good to hear you say that you just gave everyone a reason to agree with me on that point.

              • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/10/2007 9:00:34 PM

                That was ment to say "I am not the one to start"

        • Posted By: jamez292 @ 10/25/2007 4:25:56 PM

          Please, leave the lame attempts at cracking jokes to the professionals; humour just doesn???t suit somebody with as little comical talent as you do. I???ll sound how I please and not how you expect me to you disgraceful piece of filth.
          Who cares if my spelling isn???t all that ???phenomenal???? Wasn???t the aim of these comments to discuss the summary of some of the lives of characters from a book (Look, I minded my spelling again) and not the spelling or grammatical greatness of the people who are responding to it. When there???s a news flash on here about ???James??? ???phenomenally??? appalling spelling and grammar, please, feel free to criticize that there you pathetic, moronic ignoramus.
          ???If I have any pride left???? Was that an attempt to somehow make me feel ashamed of who I am, because I mistook it for a waste of three minutes rambling by a random pompous, idiot. If you???re going to make any suggestions, at least make one that might actually will do some good. As for ???my??? cocktails, they contain no ruffies as I have no intentions of ever becoming lower than the useless, idiotic freak that just spent 3 minutes thinking that what they just wrote made them look big and clever or made a point. Ruffies are for sad lonely morons like you who cannot get together with somebody by normal means because theyre just so depressing, that they force people to become suicidal just by trying to introduce yourself.
          So next time you thing your smart enough to come back here and try, yes, try to shame me or anyone else, just rethink a minute, because you didn???t secede.

          For anybody other than w@nker here, I apologise for posting in two parts as apparently you cannot post more than 3000 characters at once, so I split it in two.

  • Posted By: bvan @ 11/02/2007 4:41:58 PM

    JK Rowling states in many of her interviews that she developed extensive character backgrounds on all the characters before she wrote the first book, and even though all this background did not make the book, she tried to keep true to her character???s character. I think this is one of the reasons her books were so good.
    In previous interviews, and usually when asked specific questions, she often made insights into characters from the book, granted us hard-core fans a further look into Harry???s world. The only difference with this insight into Dumbledore???s sexual orientation is that it is controversial. The so-called righteous Christians found a new weapon against the ???satanic??? world of Hogwarts, because after all, most of those that preach this hatred do see homosexuals equal to pedophiles.
    Most everything I have read seems to show that homosexual orientation is genetic, same as hair color, height, and so on. The logical conclusion to me is that if you believe in a biblical God, that God created homosexuals and heterosexuals. I would think the so-called righteous would be happy that at least Dumbledore had the ???decency??? to stay in the closet. Guess that would just not add to the hatred.
    These righteous are always quick to point out how God feels about homosexuals and then provide scriptures to back it up. (This is similar to those who justified slavery in this country, after all, the bible obviously saw slavery as God approved ??? biblical law even points out how one can lawfully beat your slave to death ??? depending on how long they survive after the beating.)
    I find it interesting how these righteous do tend to pick and choose which laws they will follow, as there are many in the bible. And for those who like to point out that those laws don???t apply to Christians because of something Paul said, I can only point out that Jesus said in Mark 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.??? One of Moses??? Top Ten List was to ???Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy???. How many Christians follow that one today? How many even know that the Sabbath is actually Saturday? Sunday worship was a pagan ritual, made popular by Mithra, who was also born of a virgin on December 25th, and who was pictured with a halo.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/14/2007 1:38:06 PM

      He stayed in the closet because he wasn't gay until after the books were written and JKR yielded to pressure from the gay community. She simply wanted to be controversial. And Christians in general follow the laws of God set forth in the ten commandments (our own code of laws is based upon them) they don't pick and choose which commandments to obey. As for the Sabbath being on Saturday I think you'll find that most Christians you ask do know this fact and many of them (at least many Catholics since that little tidbit is taught to us in pre-confirmation classes) actually do go to church on Saturday. Some of them even go multiple times a week. If you wish to expound on paganism and the worship of pagan gods find another forum to do so. Preferably one which is filled with those of lesser and not greater intelligence than your own.

  • Posted By: stogie @ 11/03/2007 2:09:13 AM

    Homosexuality is not genetic (and there is no sound scentific evidence to support that it is). It is biologically unsound. If it is genetic then the human species would eventually go extinct. It is simply a choice. Gay people should just accept that. They should quit blamming Christains for their problem! Denying it does not change that. Christians don't claim to be perfect, in fact they acknowledge that they are not. That is exactlly what Jesus came to 'clarify" in regards to the law. We are all imperfect beings ands can only be with a perfect God if we are cleansed of that imperfection.

    Now to the point of the Dumbledor character being gay. it simply was not necessary to reveal that detail. THe story was compelling enough without that little fact. All Rowling did was alienate more of her fans. I am not sure why she did it except maybe to fullfill some need to be controversial. If she ever really intended her charater to be gay then she shouldn't have side stepped the issue to begin with just to seel me books in America.

  • Posted By: retard @ 11/13/2007 3:33:45 PM

    harry is gay with dumbledore

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/14/2007 1:09:57 PM

      Yes you are a retard!

  • Posted By: Getthrowed @ 11/08/2007 9:11:19 PM

    no it really isnt

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/13/2007 7:53:03 PM

      Just close your mouth you stupid ***. You make everyone opposed to homosexuality look like a bunch of sick racist ***.

  • Posted By: Norrin @ 11/12/2007 2:24:35 PM

    Mr. Strange, the poor grammar and the lack of insight you show in your comment says it all.

    • Posted By: jamez292 @ 11/21/2007 10:32:33 PM

      Seriously? another crack at somebodys grammar. im sorry but is it me that cant read or does the headline read "rowling says that dumbledore is gay" and not "peoples grammar". stick to the point and stop latching onto petty ways to try and bring people down because their grammar isnt all its cracked up to be.

      • Posted By: Norrin @ 11/28/2007 11:20:14 PM

        I disagree. If one wants to make a point about any issue, one needs to be able to write in a manner that is clear and concise. I'm not talking about a couple of mispellings or lack of punctuation, I'm talking about complete sentences that have a clear meaning. To write in a manner that is otherwise is wasting everyone's time.

        • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/13/2007 7:49:26 PM

          Bravo Norrin. Good show man. I really do worry about the future of the human race with people like jamesz, Mr. Strange, and yaoilover out there.

        • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/10/2007 8:27:39 PM

          Why is it? There are only 2 people thus far commenting on the used so far on this comments board. theres quite a few posts here and yet only 2 people commented. Now, is it me or do you not think that your just finding a way to get another dig in at somebody?

          • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/13/2007 3:18:35 PM

            This from the idiot that can???t even spell the word possibility (???poassility???, are you serioulsy that stupid, and your gay. Your life must suck.) And it is of no concern to you but I have a wonderful life filled with good, kind, morally upright friends and family members. They also (like myself) for the most part have college educations (or are in the process of getting one) and IQ???s well over 80 (unlike you). I therefore feel obligated to tell you to GET AN EDUCATION before you post any more comments and prove yourself even dumber. You realize that there are perhaps 2-3 grammatically correct sentences in all the comments you???ve posted. And I have no intention of insulting (victimization is reserved for descriptions of those who have been subjected to a crime) people based on race. I have insulted you based upon your life choices and obvious lack of intelligence and have likened you to a retarded child based on the level of intellectual development you have displayed in your moronic comments. The insult was directed at you since you had a choice in the level of education you received (clearly you halted your education well before high school) not the unfortunate children that have no choice in the lot that has been dealt to them in this life (not to mention the fact that those children cannot and will not ever read these comments smart guy). And for the record I (unlike you) don???t watch gay porn. I enjoy the company of and am attracted to women (unlike you I???m normal) which means that if I view images of naked human beings (in my bedroom, in Playboy, or on a late night movie channel) those human beings are female or at the worst a male and a female together. The fact that I view heterosexual pornographic images may indeed by considered perverse by some individuals Mr. Light but it is certainly nowhere near as perverse as the acts of buggery you and other gays view, take part in, and as evidenced by your gay pride parades in San Francisco force the public at large to view (vis a vi engaging in despicable acts of public sex in broad day light with children present).

        • Posted By: jamez292 @ 12/10/2007 8:28:18 PM

          Why is it? There are only 2 people thus far commenting on the used so far on this comments board. theres quite a few posts here and yet only 2 people commented. Now, is it me or do you not think that your just finding a way to get another dig in at somebody?

  • Posted By: dontmesswithsimone @ 11/21/2007 12:16:44 AM

    fall in a ditch goblewoble.
    Elena

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 12/13/2007 7:17:36 PM

      Perhaps you should as well Paulina.

  • Posted By: TheLightningScar...Dun Dun Duuun! @ 11/22/2007 1:57:32 PM

    Well i admire her anyway. At least he didn't like make out with anyone in the books or anything. i must admit i did always think, yes extravagant with his robe colours, but never gay. Each to their own. But i don't think this should lead to prejudice against homosexuals, it's not like you can tell the difference between them and a straight person so why pick on them? Even if you COULD tell the difference there's still no need for spiteful comments.
    I don't think Neville should've married Hannah Abbott though, he should've married Luna Lovegood!! and she with ernie macmillan. seamus with lavender brown, dean with parvati, malfoy and pansy parkinson, george and verity (the woman from weasley's wizard wheezes - the assistant), lee jordan with angelina johnston, katie bell and oliver wood, alicia spinnet and viktor krum, percy and penelope clearwater, harry and ginny (duh) ron and hermione (double duh).
    i'm such a hopeless romantic i know!!

    • Posted By: sassyne0926 @ 12/03/2007 3:22:31 PM

      I don't think Neville and HAnnah make a good couple either. I think Neville and Luna are a much better match. I think George and Angelina Johnson HAD to get together. George lost his twin, and Angelina lost her man. They both lost someone VERY important to them. I see them turning to each other, seeing as how no one else could understand that loss. They eventually married, and named their first child Fred. I think Seamus and Lavender ended up together, Alicia Spinett and Lee Jordan, Percy probably got back with Penelope. Charlie may have got with the Weasley store assitant ,Verity. I do think Katie and Oliver got together. Dean and Parvati also.

      • Posted By: TheLightningScar...Dun Dun Duuun! @ 12/07/2007 3:26:25 PM

        whaddya mean 'angelina lost her man'. which man??????? i think she's better off with Lee Jordan instead. and George should be with the shop assistant and THEY name their child Fred. Charlie can marry a girl who works with him with the dragons in romania. katie bell and oliver wood go VERY well together and alicia spinnet can marry viktor krum, if she wants. so there.

        • Posted By: sassyne @ 12/13/2007 4:17:28 PM

          Verity was mentioned ONCE in the whole series, I seriously doubt George ended up with her. He would be extremely emotionally broken after the death of his identical twin. It would take someone he was ALREADY close to to get him functioning again. Angelina "lost her man" in Fred. They had a relationship. Angelina was always with Fred AND George. She would have had to have had a close relationship with George also. Even in the 4th movie, it shows her sitting with both Fred and GEORGE several times. I think they probably did end up together after comforting each other. This happens alot in real life also. Several times when a woman's husband dies, she and his best friend, those who were closest to him, end up together in the long run. I think this happened here. Yes, Oliver and Katie are good for each other. Angelina isn't better of with Lee, she obviously didn't like him in that way. She wouldn't give him the time of day. Lee and Alicia make a better couple IMO. People have a problem with Angelina with the Weasleys because they are white, and she's black. The Weasleys, nor any of the HP characters were NEVER concerned with RACE, it was always about Pure Bloods vs. Half etc. I think Angelina and George made it after Fred's death.

  • Posted By: sassyne @ 12/13/2007 4:08:33 PM

    I think that Angelina Johnson and GEORGE Weasley should and probably DID get together. My reasoning is this. Fred and George were ALWAYS together. Angelina, even in the 4th movie was shown nearly always with the BOTH of them. Meaning that if she was with Fred in a relationship, she would have also had to have been close to George seeing as he was ALWAYS there too. When Fred died, they would quite naturally comfort each other. This is not unbelievable, what's unbelievable is that he wouldn't spend a lot of time with her after Fred died. Verity is mentioned once in the whole damn series. Why would he end up with her? There is no emotional connection there at all. She WORKED for him in his shop, so what? People have a problem with George ending up with Angelina because she is BLACK. The Weasleys obviously have no problem with Black people or Ginny wouldn't have dated Dean, Fred wouldn't have dated Angelina, and Lee would not have been Fred and Geroge's best friend. As for Angelina ending up with Lee, THAT'S funny. She didn't want to be bothered with him the whole series. She didn't like him like that. George and Angelina would be the only choice to end up together post Fred. It wouldn't be immediately, but I think they would END up together.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse